So say for example you meet someone, and that person told you that they're a communist or capitalist, libertarian, nationalist, humanist, feminst, vegan, existentialist, stoic etc. etc.

For the most part people and society tend to consider those kind of beliefs and ideologies a lot less "sacred" than religious beliefs. And so if you challeneged someone further on say their communist or humanist or vegan beliefs and engaged them in a conversation questioning their beliefs, most people would consider this a lot more socially acceptable than questioning someone's religious beliefs.

So say for example you're having drinks with some co-workers and you're talking about economics. And then one of your co-workers tells you that he's a communist and he believes the economy should be nationalized. Now, typically we wouldn't expect the other co-workers to go "Ok, fair enough, I respect your beliefs, economics is a private matter and we all have different beliefs". But rather it would normally be seen as perfectly acceptable in such a situation to challenge that person's views, ask them why they're a communist, how they came to the conclusion and maybe engage them in a respectful discussion explaining why you think communism is a bad idea.

But now when it comes to religious beliefs, those beliefs are typically considered much more "sacred" by society. For example if someone proudly told you they're a Muslim, it would normally be considered extremely rude to challenge them on their beliefs and explain to them why you think Islam is a made-up, man-made religion, or why Islamic ideology is potentially a bad idea.

And religious people get all sorts of exemptions and special treatment that other ideologies don't get. Like people can refuse vaccines, that are otherwise mandatory, for religious reasons. Or for example in the US, by law, employers need to make reasonable accomodations to their religious employees. So Muslim or Christian employees would be allowed to take short breaks to pray or read their Bible, or be given time off to go to church or mosque. But now a secular humanist on the other does not have the legal right to take breaks throughout the day to read the Humanist Manifesto, or be given time off work to attend a weekly humanist reading club or something.

Or for example when it comes to animal welfare laws, halal and kosher slaughter is often exempt from many of those laws. So religious people are allowed to do things that otherwise wouldn't be legal. Or say someone wrote a scathing article in a newspaper criticizing humanism or veganism or socialism or stoicism or any other non-religious ideology, normally no one would bat an eye. But now say the same newspaper published an article criticizing Islam and the dangers of Islamic ideology, quite likely there would be enormous backlash and a lot of people would be outraged. The author may be accused of Islamophobia, while at the same time I haven't ever heard anyone be accused of inciting "veganophobia" or "socialistophobia".

And so I think all of this shows that there is a massive double standard in society when it comes to religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs. And I really don't think this double standard is reasonable. Religious beliefs shouldn't be treated as any more sacred or inherently worthy of respect than other beliefs. There are ideologies that are based on good ideas, some that are based on bad ideas, and others that are based on so-so ideas. And religious ideas shouldn't be inherently more respected than other ideas and ideologies. Religious ideologies should be equally scrutinized and criticized in the same way other ideologies are scrutinized and criticized.

Even if Islam’s alleged miracles were all proven to be true, it wouldn’t prove the truthfulness of Islam.

Arguably the greatest miracle in Islam was that Muhammad split the moon. Assuming this actually happened and that a being called Allah was responsible for it, it doesn’t at all prove that Allah is omnipotent. Splitting the moon is a miniscule achievement compared to creating the universe as the moon is not even a grain of sand compared to the rest of the universe.

It's kind of like in Dragon Ball, when Master Roshi destroys the moon. Though this was quite an achievement at the beginning of the series, you eventually learn that Master Roshi isn’t even the strongest one on his planet, let alone in the entire universe. It would be illogical to think that just because Master Roshi split the moon, he is omnipotent.

Conceivably, Allah could just be a lesser God or an alien who merely claims to be an all-powerful God. Even if every single one of Islam’s miracles were true, it wouldn’t prove that Allah is powerful enough to create the universe.

Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, everything God wants to do is achieved effortlessly and there's absolutely no chance of failure.

For example, God creating the universe is easier than you picking your nose.

There's a zero chance of God not being able to create the universe (to exact specifications) once God decided to do so, but there's a non-zero chance for you to fail picking your nose once you decide to do so (you could miss and poke you eye, or you could have a stroke and die on the spot).

So, how can one praise God for doing something that is easier than picking your nose?

Therefore nothing God does is praiseworthy.

The story is too unlikely for it to be real. The ark would have to be too big to construct with timber; there would have to be one male and one female of each species which is impossible considering how many species there are today; if God was omnipotent He wouldn't need to get Noah to build the ark he could just snap His fingers and kill everyone he wants and leave whoever He wants to keep alive; etc.

And there's no evidence of a global flood at all, which there should be if there was a global flood. There should be mass graves of humans and animals all over the world from the same time but there isn't any, etc.

Thanks for reading, I'm The-Rational-Human.

×××××××××××××××××××××××××××

EDIT:

Rebuttals Section:

"It was a local flood."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that.

"It's allegorical."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that. If it's allegorical, what exactly is the point of the allegory? Did Noah really exist or not? Why use a real person for an allegory? If it's an allegory then your whole religion is an allegory.

"Lots of civilizations had/have their own flood myth, so it must've really happened."

This is the best argument. However it could be just because floods are common so the myth is common. I doubt all the myths include an ark with animals on it.

"They found the ark on Mount Ararat."

That's fake. No wood has been found or animal remains. I guess it kind of looks like a boat? But not an ark.

"We haven't found the evidence yet but maybe we will in the future."

Then why do you believe it now instead of in the future after finding the evidence?

"Why didn't you mention Judaism?"

You need to have at least 1 billion followers to be considered a relevant religion, Jews constitue 0.2% of the population, so Judaism, while relevant to the discussion, is irrelevant in general. Of course this disproves Judaism as well, so I don't need to mention it.

how can the christians of the world say that its okay for someone to entail finite sin and lead to an infitite suffering , i dont get it because the only reason someone got that suffering seems to be because they didnt believe that jesus was their lord and savior but still , if someone who was close to believing that jesus was their lord and savior and died just before that then he is in hell for all eternity now ... how do you justify that?

the Protestant principle "Sola Fide" is unjust:

let's imagine person A who did lots of good deeds in their life, but was bullied at school and therefore don't trust people or anything in human form (like Jesus) and person B who did a lot of bad deeds and shortly before their death they turn to Jesus - what is their fate after death?

according to Sola Fide, person A might get to hell and person B to heaven (maybe I get the principle wrong, I am not a protestant, let's see in the comments)

in my opinion we can control our deeds much more than we can control our beliefs, so afterlife destination based on deeds is much more just than afterlife destination based on belief

Today, a good percentage of people in every religion will say they are of said religion but have never actually taken a deep look into said religion. Perhaps they were born into it, so they always identified as that religion or maybe they needed to revert to that religion to marry someone. Whatever the case may be, what meaning does it have to be of any religion if you don't need to actually need follow it. Religion isn't just about "beliefs", it's also a way of life or code of conduct. I actually find it very interesting when people want to me to convert to their religion but don't seem to be interested about me living by the actual PRINCIPLES of that religion. It's almost like saying you're a (christian, muslim, jew, hindu, etc) is more meaningful than actually living BY that religion's code.

Basically, you should have to earn the right to call yourself a (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc.), maybe through your actions or way of life, but if you never actually conduct your life based on that religion, then what meaning does it really have?

We've discovered four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Causal interactions appear to be mediated through one or more of these forces. We do not observe any instance of God acting through any of these forces. If God acts at all, then it must be through some undetectable mechanism. Perhaps some unknown force. The issue is that an undetectable influence is functionally equivalent to no influence. Therefore, unless and until we can detect the manner in which God causes things, we have no good reason to affirm that God causes anything.

I can see a possible objection to what I'm saying. What if God operates in a way that is empirically undetectable?

If that's the case, then your granting that God's actions produce no observable effects. Besides, the mere possibility that God could operate in a way that is empirically undetectable, does not in and of itself justify believing that that is true.

Thesis:

The Quran doesn't always override the Hadith

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Notes Section:

• You only need to read the Argument Section it's very short.

• Please post non-debating comments as a reply in the commentary section otherwise your comment may get deleted by mods.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Argument Section:

Many Muslims think that the Quran's authority always overrides the Hadiths, but this is a misconception and is not true.

The Quran allows Mut'ah (temporary) marriage^[2] in Quran 4:24. This is from Tafsir Ibn Al Kathir of 4:24, showing that the Quran still contains the verse which allows Mut'ah marriage, but the Hadith of the Prophet overrides/abrogates it, even though it's still in the Quran.

The text in brackets is the Quran verse

QUOTE

[...]

(So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut'ah marriage. A Mut'ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful 'Ali bin Abi Talib said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut'ah marriage [...]

ENDQUOTE [1]

We know that in Islam Mut'ah marriage is prohibited (haraam) but it's still in the Quran. Interestingly, this is why the Shia still believe that Mut'ah is allowed (halal) because they don't believe in Sunni hadiths.

And that's how the Hadith can override the Quran sometimes.

Thanks for reading, I'm The-Rational-Human.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Rebuttals Section:

Can't think of any.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Afterword Section:

Why did I make this post?

To show that all average everyday Muslims (or most of them) have preconceived assumptions about Islam that are false, and they don't actually know much about Islam at all. And when they learn about these things, they are supposed to say "Oh, wow, I didn't know that! I actually don't know much about Islam... Am I really sure Islam is really true?" but they just say "Oh. Anyway..." and just keep believing in Islam blindly.

The fact that the Hadith sometimes overrides the Quran is not just counter-intuitive, it's problematic because the Quran is supposed to the ultimate and final revelation from God - God should not leave in abrogated verses in the Quran which don't apply which are still recited in many prayers around the world to this day. That is wrong.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Footnotes:

[1] Link https://quranx.com/tafsirs/4.24

[2] What is the point of Mut'ah (temporary) marriage? The motivation for engaging in a temporary marriage is to have intercourse with a woman without committing zina (adultery/fornication) which is haraam (prohibited) in Islam. Essentially, some may describe it as a legal version of prostitution.

I'm looking at this from the outside perspective of someone who might be a monotheist and is trying to determine whether or not a human is the incarnation of a God.

If we already presuppose Jesus as God, then yes, of course, anything Jesus did was the best possible thing to do. We can go ahead and give Jesus the "mysterious ways" pass or the Euthyphro dilemma pass.

But before we can hand out MW or ED passes, we have to first determine that that being is worthy of it by virtue of being God.

If we look at things from a "powers" perspective, Jesus's alleged miracles aren't that impressive. Jesus wasn't creating universes, teleporting, or levitating cities. He was doing what I like to call "low-level" magics, which, given a theistic worldview, is possible for a being without it being God.

I've heard Christians say that Christ was "limiting" himself while on earth, but if that's the case...couldn't I make that argument about anyone? Who is to say a baby that doesn't perform a single miracle isn't also limiting himself, just more dramatically than Christ?

The next major issue is Jesus' "behavior", which is claimed to be perfect, but I bet we can easily think of ways it could be better. He could have healed one extra person. He could have presented himself to distant places and peoples. He could have shown himself to 5,000 people instead of 500. Given his immense powers, he could have done a lot more with them. Having Godlike power and not making use of it is a poor choice. And remember, I'm trying to determine if this being is God. As, I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in hearing "Jesus did the perfect amount of miracles because he's God". I don't know that he's God yet, I'm trying to make that determination.

In summary, "God" is supposed to be maximally Good and maximally Powerful, but the character of Jesus, even when presented in his most supernatural Gospel accounts, does not appear to meet these criteria.

In a similar vein, I'm curious as to how "weak" Jesus' miracles could have been or how "poor" his behavior could have been, and still get counted as "God". Surely, there's a limit to how unimpressive the Gospel accounts of Christ could be, before a Christian no longer entertains that being as God.

(I'm anticipating a separate discussion about Jesus fulfilling prophecy as the true indicator of his Godhood.)

Thesis: You do not actually think God is moral, and you do not apply the standard you hold him to to anyone else.

I am your local sheriff. A family member of yours is walking down the street. I am parked on the street, leaning against my car. I wave at your family member as they walk past me. Right behind them is a man. The man is holding a gun, gives me a wink and smile, and says, "I am going to shoot them," pointing at your family member. I watch this unfold, and I take in every detail. The man shoots and kills your family member.

I do nothing. I don't stop the man. I don't arrest him after. I watch him walk away.

Later, I come and inform you about all of this. I tell you that your family member is dead. I saw the man who did it. I knew he was going to do it. I made no attempt to stop him before it happened, and I made no attempt to arrest him afterwards.

You ask me why I did this. I tell you that I have a plan. It's all for the greater good, but I can't explain my plan to you because that would ruin my plan.

You ask me why I let him do this. I tell you that the man has free will, and I cannot interfere with that free will.

You ask me why I didn't arrest him. I tell you that he will be punished later.

You decide with my last statement that maybe I do indeed have a plan of how to handle this, so you wait.

The next week, I come back and tell you that the man will not be punished. I confronted him about what happened, and he asked me for my forgiveness. I gave it to him. There will be no punishment for what he did. He was not punished before asking for forgiveness, and because he asked for forgiveness (I believe) sincerely, I have granted it to him.

A week after that, the whole thing repeats with another family member of yours. All of it, exactly the same.

Would you vote for me to be your sheriff in the next election?

Sahih al-Bukhari 278 - Bathing (Ghusl) - كتاب الغسل - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Context: In reliable hadith, Mohammad narrated a story about how the People of Bani Israel used to think Moses had a testicular disorder, as he would bath alone.

>They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.

This was false, and I assume Allah wanted to teach these ignorant fools the truth, so one day, when Moses was bathing, a stone that he had rested his clothes on, got up and ran way.

Yes, the stone RAN AWAY with Moses's clothes, so naked Moses ran after the stone and in front of everyone else, who looked at his testicles and did not see a testicular disorder, so logically they said "By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body".

Now comes the immoral and/or cognitively impaired part.

Moses then catches up to the stone that ran away with his clothes, he picks up his clothes and starts to BEAT the stone, which still bared those marks from that excessive beating.

My thesis is that Moses was immoral, as he should not have beaten the stone, as

1. beating people/stones is not moral punishment in Islam/under Moses
2. There should have been a trial for the stone, to confirm whether or not it was guilt of theft, before any punishment was given out
3. The punishment should have followed Allahs laws, or else its immoral

Source: Hadith

> The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet (ﷺ) Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."

Edit: While there is little debate amongst Sunnis that this incident of the stone running happened, there is some scholarly debate over whether the rock that Abu Huraira saw was the same rock that ran from Moses. Muslim scholars have not confirmed this .

Disclaimer: This only apples to those persons that self identify as Muslims who accept Sahih Bukhari hadith. This does not apply to all LGBTQIA* Muslims, Quranists, progressive liberal Muslims, etc.

Tangentially related notes:

Story when Moses Took a Bath Naked and the Stone Fled with his Clothes - Various Scholars - Islamway

What you can learn from this story from the Prophet of Islam is

>Amongst the lessons drawn from the above-mentioned Hadeeth:

>1- Permissibility of walking naked whenever there is a necessity.

> 2- It implies the permissibility of looking at ‘Awrah(3) whenever  there is a necessity such as medical purposes and being free of defects, for example, one of the spouse may claim that the other suffer from leprosy to cancel the contact of marriage while the other denied that.

>3- It refers that all Prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, were created in the best and perfect shape and that whoever attributes any defect or shortcoming to anyone of the Prophets, may Allaah exalt his mention, about his shape then he has harmed him and we fear that the one who does so be a Kaafir (i.e. disbeliever).

Yes, making an initial claim like “god doesn’t exist” (which isn’t the typical atheists stance) IS a positive claim but what’s nonsensical is replying to the atheist’s positive claim to say “prove that god doesn’t exist.” it’s nonsensical for many reasons, one being the fact that the atheist has to then prove an obscene amount of other negatives that have no proof in the first place.

• You can’t prove an invisible intangible fire breathing dragon doesn’t sit underneath your bed

• You can’t prove that an invisible intangible giant cheeseburger doesn’t sit in the corner of your room menacingly breathing as it’s watching you sleep

You cannot prove that Santa Claus or the Easter bunny aren’t real. And I haven’t even touched on the gist of it all: saying “prove god doesn’t exist” is the thickest form of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seem from a believer. You’ve already unsubscribed yourself from “proof” when you decided that god is real without any evidence…so why do you need proof from an atheist that god doesn’t exist… that is circular reasoning …if you wanna sound smart, you’re better off just saying “well believing in god only requires faith so you wouldn’t understand.” stop trying to mix mental artillery with your belief in a sky daddy, that’s the equivalent of trying to build a house out of cards

First, what is justice? Justice, in its most basic and universal sense, is the principle that punishment should be proportional to the action committed. A fair sentence takes into account not only the severity of the offense, but also the intention of the offender, and their awareness of what they were doing.

So, condemning a person to eternal torment for finite actions committed in a short lifetime follows the same logic of disproportion.

However, Christian theologians often counter this objection with a particular argument:

– God is an infinite being, and therefore any act that offends Him carries infinite weight and deserves infinite punishment.

– Insulting a criminal does not have the same moral weight as insulting one's own mother — someone who loves you and cares about you.

– Thus, offending God, who is infinitely holy and loving, would be the gravest offense imaginable.

But this response overlooks a fundamental factor: the offender’s awareness.

The weight of an offense is not determined solely by the dignity of the one offended, but also by the offender's understanding of their action.

A child who lashes out at their mother does not bear the same moral responsibility as an adult who consciously and maliciously does the same thing. Moral guilt is inextricably tied to the agent’s capacity for understanding.

For a human sin against God to truly be an infinite offense, the human must possess full awareness of God’s infinite nature, the gravity of the act, and its eternal consequences. But this is impossible. Human beings are finite by nature — limited in knowledge, moral capacity, and spiritual insight. Even the most faithful people do not fully comprehend the majesty, holiness, and transcendence of God.

Therefore, sins committed by finite and limited beings cannot, by definition, carry infinite guilt. And if the guilt is finite, the punishment must also be finite in order to be just.

Upholding the doctrine of eternal hell implies that God condemns imperfect creatures — who never truly grasped the full weight of their actions — to endless suffering. That is a profound injustice, incompatible with the notion of a just and merciful God.

The doctrine of eternal hell creates an internal contradiction within the very concept of God as love. What kind of love punishes temporary sins with infinite torment?

Why did God create atheists? He knew that these people would end up in hell and burn for a gazillion or more years, if not for eternity. So why create them in the first place? Ask yourself this question: Why didn't God just create theists?

It's not like there was a limit to how many or what type of humans He could make. If He's omnipotent, then He had the potential to make an infinite number of people. So, logically, the number of potential theists and atheists would be infinite as well.

So what is He trying to prove here? What purpose do these people serve, other than suffering eternally or for a gazillion/trillion years, just because they weren't convinced of His existence? Heck, why create anyone who'd end up in hell, whether theist or atheist?

The common theist response is that it was done to test them. Well, test them for what? Their intellectual abilities? Yea they failed, as He knew they would, now what? Is there a point He's trying to make, or does He simply enjoy seeing people suffer and burn in His torture room? If so then I can't help but conclude that God is a Sadist. He had a choice not to create people who'd suffer such a horrific fate, but He made them anyway. I just don't see any other reason for creating them.

Edit: Just ignore this post if you're Jewish i.e don't believe hell exists. Can't change the title now so just deal with it, trust me it's not that hard. So yea I won't be replying to those comments.

I’d rather be a robot with perhaps the illusion we have free will but guaranteed bliss, than a conscious being with true free will and the weight of suffering that comes with it.

Theist, particularly Christians/Muslims like to defend free will like it’s some sacred gift, but what good is it, if it comes with war, disease, trauma, depression, abuse, and endless suffering.

If the cost of choosing your own path is that billions suffer along the way, maybe… just maybe it’s not worth it.

Ps: I don’t believe we have free will. I believe it’s an illusion. However, this post is directed towards people that believe in free will.

When atheists make an argument that "our modern society is less religious now, and this society by many metrics is better than the both modern and old religious societies" to show that our world is better off without religion, christians often respond with something like: "but even though our modern society is more prosperous, we shouldnt forget that it(even if we talking about societies with high percentage of atheists/non-believers) is built on christian values, and only because of that it is so prosperous today". So basically christians are trying to make a counterargument that even if you live in secular society and by atheistic values, you still inevitably live in the society that is build on the christian values, which is exactly why it is so prosperous today. That is what im going to try to disprove here.

If Christians argue that modern secular prosperity is downstream of Christian values, then by the same logic, Christianity itself is downstream of older cultural frameworks - primarily Greco-Roman philosophy, law, and governance, as well as influences from Judaism, Mesopotamian law, and even pre-Christian European paganism. Key examples:

• Democracy & Rule of Law: Concepts of civic equality and legal systems trace back to Athens and Rome (e.g., Roman Twelve Tables, Athenian democracy), not the Bible.
• Rationalism & Science: The scientific method and empirical inquiry emerged from Greek thinkers (Aristotle, Archimedes) and were preserved/expanded by Islamic scholars, not the medieval Church.
• Humanism: Stoic philosophy (e.g., Seneca, Marcus Aurelius) emphasized universal human dignity and ethics independent of divine command.

Conclusion #1: If credit is given to Christianity for "borrowing" and transmitting these ideas, then the original source deserves greater recognition.

Christians often claim credit for values like "love thy neighbor" or charity, but these are human universals:

• Altruism: Observed in atheists and non-Christian cultures (e.g., Buddhist compassion, Confucian benevolence).
• Justice: The Code of Hammurabi (1776 BCE) predates the Ten Commandments.
• Work Ethic: Confucian and Greco-Roman cultures emphasized diligence long before the Protestant work ethic.

Conclusion #2: These values are evolutionary/cultural adaptations, not divine gifts.

If Christians insist modern prosperity is rooted in their tradition, they must:

1. Acknowledge that Christianity inherited its best ideas from older cultures.
2. Confront the fact that secular, non-Christian societies also achieve prosperity.

Final conclusion : Prosperity comes from open societies that synthesize useful ideas - whether Greek rationalism, Roman law, or secular humanism - not from any one religion.

This argument flips the script: instead of Christianity being the foundation, it becomes a middleman in the transmission of older, more universal values. The burden then shifts to Christians to prove why their framework is uniquely essential today.

Before God created humans, he had everything and nothing would increase or decrease him in any way.

That said, he created humans to demand them validate him and created a lot of suffering to sustain this including hell.

Would anything be added or reduced to him if he decided not to, no. But he decided to go on when the result would end in suffering of beings he created.

This means he is either a sadist and doesn't deserve worship or, he is one so in need of validation that when he had everything, the only thing he wanted more is validation.

So this is more about the sociological understanding of religion and its way of operating within the world. This post is mainly about the Christian right, I will explain why I'd also like to hear from muslims at the end of the post.

One of the things I've been thinking about of late is how.... idk the right word,,, perverted american Christianity is today. What I mean by this is that it is seems to have completely lost track of what it claims to believe, and I think a large part of this is due to the rise of religious and evangelical right.

Now, regardless of your political opinions or what you think the "real teachings" of jesus are, I do think that most people can agree that the church these days is much more focused on like politics and the like than like... studying the bible or going out and spreading the good word through good deeds. To me, it seems increasingly that the church is a political organization more than a religious one. And that political organization is dedicated to advancing the political agenda of one Donald J Trump. And I think that even Christians can agree he isn't the most Christ-ly figure right?

And perhaps you think that's good, perhaps you are a fan of this right wing turn.

What I'm really saying though is that politics, through its very nature, requires you to make compromises and get in the mud. Politics is not a clean business. And, when you add a sort of religious veneer then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9L5K04VgkI

That whole video is like... basically blasphemy right? The idea that God chose trump and sent him to us?

The core idea I want to get at here is that, when the church gets political, it must NECESSAIRLY compromise its own teachings and beliefs in order to accommodate various political realities. This is because, political reality necessitates compromises of your morality or of your beliefs. You need to like, make deals to get stuff done, or you need to accommodate yourself to deals with figures you may not like. That's just the reality of politics. But when you're a church, acting in the name of god, you have to be infallible, and so that NECESSAIRLY corrupts the teachings you offer to your followers. In short, separation of church and state is necessary for religion to remain... religious. Dedicated to acting out, following, and discovering the word of god, because only absent the pressures of politics can you actually be objective in discussing theology. Otherwise you introduce problems of motivated reason or the like and that distorts your ability to actually approach religious texts according to theological interpretation alone right? Because you NEED some doctrine to be true in order to get stuff politically, and to justify actions which you wouldn't normally justify.

You can look at the history of the catholic church in europe for plenty of examples of this. But the point is, the church NECESSAIRLY turns away from actually understanding God's word. I honestly believe the american Christian right is a very good example of this, it is so obvious to me that the church is more dedicated to trump than jesus now. Hell there were even pastors who were complaining that their parishioners thought jesus was too "liberal" for them.

Now, the reason I wanted to talk with muslims about this is that, unlike judaism or christianity, Islam from its earliest days has been deeply involved in politics, namely through Muhamad's early reign, the initial arab conquests, the early Rashidun caliphate, and the subsequent role of statecraft in there. I get that there were 4 rightly guided caliphs, but I'm curious how politics influenced religious doctrine, and how you feel that's translated into your faith, if at all. Quite early on, islam HAD to be involved in statecraft because it was founding the caliphate and early statecraft by Muhammad (it's been a while since I read up on early islamic history, so forgive me for forgetting the details of his early leadership)?

Edit:

tl;dr:

The introduction of politics to religion introduces the problem of motivated reasoning. Basically, in order to get anything done in politics you need to make compromises or make alliances with people you may not otherwise associate with. Beyond that, you need to ensure that certain things are "justified" within your own morality, because it's needed in order to get things through politically or to manage alliances and coalitions. That NECESSAIRLY introduces distortions and motivated "understandings" of your religious texts/beliefs/morality, because you NEED things to be true in order to engage in the political process, enable alliances, or do things you would normally condemn. In short, politics prevents you from being objective in reading your own texts or understanding your own theology because you NEED certain things to be true in order to facilitate the political process. Politics "eats" religion, it subsumes religious beliefs into its every moving realities of changing alliances and policies needed to maintain coalitions or grips on power.

So, for example, a lot of evangelicals NEED trump to be chosen by god, and excuse a lot of stuff they wouldn't normally (affairs, felonies, etc) because he's basically their best hope for getting certain political goals that they have. In so doing, the church begins to distort its own understanding of the bible, and many try and find biblical justifications for trumpism, and then you get stuff like the video I linked in the main post. In short, political objectives lead to an unholy (lol) alliance, which leads to distorted understandings/readings of the bible, which perverts the faith from what it claims to be. Gradually trump becomes more important than jesus.

The Bible clearly says children aren’t punished for their parents’ actions and vice versa—everyone is judged by the sins they commit. Examples:

Deuteronomy 24:16 ‘Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.’

Ezekiel 18:20 ‘The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.’

So why does God do the opposite in 1 Samuel 15:3, where He says:

‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will PUNISH the Amalekites for what THEY DID to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, CHILDREN and INFANTS, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’’

When this verse is used in general to argue that God is ‘cruel and evil,’ the typical response is that ‘the Amalekites did horrible things, so God had to punish them.’ But even if that’s true, the children and infants didn’t do anything to Israel or anyone else. Why are they being punished for the sins of their parents, when the Bible explicitly forbids this kind of punishment?

Quran 7:172 "And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes, we have testified.' [This] - lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Indeed, we were of this unaware.'"
-Saheeh International

The verse refers to a moment, according to Islam, when Allah gathered all of humanity before our earthly lives and made us testify that he is our Lord. This is known as the “primordial covenant” or “al-Mithaq.” The purpose of this event, as explained in the verse itself, was to prevent humans from claiming ignorance on the Day of Judgement. The verse says: “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we testify.” Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were unaware of this.’”

This is the interpretation of many classical scholars and tafsir works, including Ibn Kathir, who treat this as real event, not a metaphor or allegory. According to these views, the covenant literally happened before our birth and is meant to serve as a binding testimony that we are all accountable for. The understanding is that this testimony removes our excuse. In other words, no one can say, “I didn’t know God existed” because, in theory, we all already acknowledged it before birth.

But here’s the issue: this reasoning falls apart under scrutiny, both logically and practically.

How can we not say “we were of this unaware” if we're literally made to forget the event?:

The whole purpose of this covenant, as the verse states, is so that we can't say “we were unaware.” But here’s the problem: we are indeed unaware. No human being remembers this event. Not partially. Not vaguely. Not even subconsciously. It’s completely inaccessible to us. So how does it make sense to say, “You can’t claim you didn’t know,” when we have no way of knowing?

It’s like someone making you sign a contract in your sleep, then blaming you later for breaking the agreement. If I don’t remember ever making a promise, and there’s no way for me to recall it, then saying “you have no excuse” is simply unfair. If the goal was to prevent ignorance, then why erase the only memory that could remove that ignorance?

If Allah is all-knowing, why would he use a forgotten event as a basis for judgement?:

Now let’s consider Allah’s omniscience. According to Islam, Allah knows everything past, present, and future. So he knew we would not remember this covenant. He knew the testimony would be forgotten. And he knew we would arrive in this life with no memory of it. So why would he say, “I made you testify so you couldn’t say you were unaware,” when he already knew we’d be unaware? That makes the entire argument incoherent.

It’s like deliberately wiping someone’s memory and then holding them accountable for what they forgot. It’s not just illogical, it’s contradictory as well. If the covenant is erased from our minds, then it can’t logically serve as a basis to remove our excuse. And if Allah knew this would be the case, then the reasoning in the verse falls apart. The very condition the verse is trying to prevent (ignorance) is guaranteed by design. That makes the covenant functionally useless as evidence against us.

Some Muslims then respond to this by saying "the Quran is reminding us of the covenant.” This only makes sense if the reminder actually connects with something inside us like a memory or sense of recognition. But no one remembers this event. The Quran isn’t reminding us of something we already knew. It’s simply introducing new information. That’s not a reminder that’s just a baseless claim.

Some Muslims say "we’re born with the fitrah a natural inclination to believe in one God.” This argument shifts the goalposts. The verse talks about a literal, verbal testimony. Not a feeling. Not intuition. An actual event where we said, “Yes, You are our Lord.” So replacing that with “fitrah” is avoiding the main issue. Also, the fitrah itself isn’t universal. People grow up to become atheists, agnostics, polytheists, and followers of countless religions. If fitrah is supposed to lead everyone to belief in one God, then it clearly doesn’t work consistently and therefore can’t be used to explain or support the verse.

Some argue "prophets were sent to remind us of the covenant.” If we only know about the covenant because prophets told us later, then the covenant itself doesn’t actually do anything. It depends entirely on future revelation to have any effect. So the verse’s claim that this testimony removes our excuse doesn’t hold up unless you happen to receive and believe the prophet’s message. That makes the covenant ineffective by itself, especially for people who never received or accepted that message.

Conclusion:

Qur’an 7:172 is often presented as a powerful response to claims of ignorance about God. But under basic logical scrutiny, the argument collapses. We are told we can’t claim to be unaware while being made to forget the very event that would prevent that ignorance. And we’re told this by a God who knew we would forget.

Muslim responses try to patch this by appealing to fitrah, prophetic reminders, or the Quran itself, but none of these resolve the core issue: a forgotten covenant cannot serve as a rational or just basis for judgement.

If knowledge is required for accountability, then withholding that knowledge and then blaming people for not having it, is both unjust and incoherent

Ok here's what I've been thinking about this free will stuff having 'decontaminated' myself from theistic (and most precisely, 'salvationist') coertion.. Free will in itself requires the possibility of moral failure, a real one. The 'all powerful' yahweh could have made us just obedient robots, but could it give us actual freedom while removing all risk of evil?

If you've ever loved anything or anyone, you know its value comes from it being spotaneous, freely given, and because it is free and not coerced, it includes the possibility of rejection. And of course true freedom in a moral sense requires that you can choose badly. Just because of this, the existence of evil, therefore, proves god gave humans real agency rather than illusionary choice.

My (crucial) point is.. can anyone describe what 'authentic freedom' would look like if it were completely divorced from any possibility of evil?

Islam tests obedience rather than morality. According to many Muslims in Islam Allah tests people's ability to be moral. I disagree. I think Islam tests people's ability to follow rules - many of which are arbitrary.

1. Arbitrary Rules

Here are certain examples of things that are completely arbitrary that Islam seems to place importance on:

• It is Sunnah to enter a washroom with the left foot first (Sunnah means one is given additional rewards for doing so because Muhammad used to do this)

• Wearing one's right shoe first is another Sunnah

• If one passes gas during prayer, one has to purify themselves once again in order to perform prayer (I think this is arbitrary because farts have no germs in them and even if they did, the Islamic method of purification before prayer doesn't wash the bum).

There are many more examples of these types of behaviors that Islam favors. None of these actions have any moral implications whatsoever.

2. Morality in Islam is defined by Allah

In Islam, morality is ultimately determined by God. But if this were true, it makes it so that Islam is testing one's ability to follow God's instructions. For example, in Islam it is said that one should give to the poor, something many people would consider an admirable and moral action. However, the reason this is an admirable action in Islam is not because the action itself is a moral action, but because God commands it.

An example of this happening was when Ibrahim was commanded to slaughter his son. Though Allah ended up saving his son from Ibrahim killing him, it shows precisely how Islam favors obedience and faith in Allah over morality - because Ibrahim genuinely believed his son was going to die and is used as an example for Muslims to strive towards.

Perhaps the strongest evidence for this is the fact that in Islam, a person's good actions, no matter how selfless or numerous, will not save them from going to Hell if they disbelieve in Islam.

3. Heaven and Hell

Its really silly for Allah to offer incentives for doing the right thing if he is testing people's morality. Its like me saying "If you give to the poor, I will give you a billions of dollars but if you don't, I will punish you". Even the most apathetic psychopathic would probably choose to do the "right thing" in this situation, but that wouldn't make them a good person.

Now, you may argue that God's morality is where human morality comes from and that without it, we would have no morality but even if we were to grant this, my argument still stands. If humans are incapable of determining morality on their own and need God, then the right thing to do is just to obey God hence making it so God is testing obedience.

I recently listened to a deconversion testimonial that pointed towards the inability to reconcile an all-powerful, sovereign God who is "good" with the existence of suffering among the world's innocents (eg children who have cancer, victims of freak accidents, etc).

However, there are many instances of people who have suffered great losses or have experienced other forms of deep suffering, who somehow develop profound gratitude over the course or at the end of their trauma, expressing no regret that the events unfolded in the way they did.

Without the subjective input of those who claim these experiences of suffering as meaningful and desirable, these events are likely to be seen as examples of God allowing or even causing cruel and unnecessary suffering (since God's attributes would allow for intervention and/or prevention). Therefore, desirable/constructive suffering exists in contrast to undesirable/destructive suffering. Although how to distinguish one from the other remains.

Terminology

Note: These are the are the terms that I will use to refer to different meanings of the word anonymous

Anonymous document: a document whose author is unknown (e.g. Book of Hebrews)

Internally Anonymous Document: a document whose CONTENTS do not identify the author even if the title/cover identifies the author (e.g. Tacitus’ The Annals of Imperial Rome)

There is no debate that the 4 Gospels are internally anonymous, but the fact that the Gospels are internally anonymous does not mean that the authorship is not attributed to the author in the title, which is the topic of our discussion.

How We Should Evaluate Evidence

The Anonymous Gospels theory is advocated by multiple scholars, most famously Bart Ehrman, so I will be using his definition as a reference: He advocates the theory that the documents were written anonymously and then the names were added later around the late 2nd century.

Now this claim has 2 issues:

1. It is almost unfalsifiable: scholars like Dr. Ehrman chose the date of adding titles to be just before Ireneaus and our earliest manuscripts that are intact enough to contain the titles.
2. It accuses the early Church of forgery: while we should be open to the possibility that the early church did in fact commit forgery, they are innocent until proven guilt, not guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof lies on the side that is making an accusation of forgery.

Manuscript Evidence

All Manuscripts that we have intact enough to contain the titles attribute Gospel authorship to the same 4 people, and no anonymous copies have been discovered, despite the fact that over 5800 manuscripts were discovered for the New Testament.

Some people claim that the manuscript P1 is anonymous. However, the manuscript is just too fragmentary to contain the title and the manuscript clearly has no title, even though there is no debate on whether the Gospels had titles or not, but rather the debate is around whether the author's names were included in those respective titles. In fact, Martin Hengel, an Atheist New Testament scholar (source) acknowledges that the documents must have had titles since they started circulation:

It would be inconceivable for the Gospels to circulate without any identifying label, even from their earliest use

Martin Hengel – The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ

Moreover, there were many manuscript families that did not have the title immediately above the text:

1. Some of them had the title at the end of the manuscript (e.g. P75)
2. Some of them had no titles within the text, but just a separate cover page (e.g. P4, P64, P67)

In fact, even Bart Ehrman, who strictly advocates the anonymous gospels theory acknowledges that this manuscript is not anonymous and explains it by saying that the top of the manuscript is torn:

OK, I took a look. The alpha means “chapter 1”. It would have come below the title, assuming the book has a title. The part of the ms that would have had the title (above the alpha) is missing. So technically there’s no way to tell whether it had a title or not, but the assumption would naturally be that it did — expecially if a scribe has added a chapter number.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-the-gospels-originally-have-titles/

Our Earliest Reports About the Gospels

Papias of Hierapolis (90 → 110 AD) confirms the authorship of both Mark and Matthew

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one translated them as best he could.

Note: While I agree with those who claim that the Matthew we have today is based on Greek (rather than Hebrew) manuscripts, I believe it is a translation of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and even Papias states that the Hebrew version was not preached, but rather every preacher translated it to the best of their ability.

Justin Martyr: First Apology (155–157 AD)

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

Here Justin Martyr confirms that the Gospels were written by apostles (not just unknown individuals) and even confirms that the structure is similar to a biography of Jesus.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (175 to 189 AD)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus states that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote Gospels, and that Peter narrated the Gospel of Mark. Despite the assertion that the Gospel of Mark was narrated by Peter, the early Church assigned it to Mark because that was the author they knew (even though Peter would have added credibility). So we know that the Gospel of Mark is named "Mark" not because the early Church fathers claimed it, but because that is the name that has been given to it since its writing.

Scholarly Consensus

Some skeptics claim that the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous, so this is a sufficient reason to believe that they are. This argument has 2 issues:

First, It is logically fallacious: this argument combines Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity to make the case that it is true. Even Dr. Bart Ehrman who advocates the anonymity of the Gospels acknowledges that the scholarly consensus is NOT evidence (source).

Second, it is actually based on a wrong interpretation of what critical scholars are: Critical Scholars are ones who examine evidence critically; however, when we look at the scholarly consensus among critical NT scholars, we see that the majority believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels (source). So, why do scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman claim that they present the critical scholarly consensus? Because they do not consider Christian critical scholars to be truly critical and consider them unreliable because they have confirmation bias to prove Christianity true.

I told him that what I always try to say (maybe I slip up sometimes?  I don’t know, but I try to say this every time) is what the majority of “critical” scholars think about this, that, or the other thing.   What I mean by that is that apart from scholars who have a firm commitment to the infallibility of the Bible (so that there cannot be a book, such as Ephesians, that claims to be written by someone who did not write it, because that would be a “lie” and would be impossible for an author of Scripture) and to the established traditions of Christianity (so that John the son of Zebedee really did write the Gospel of John since that is what Christians have always claimed) – apart from those people, the majority of scholars who leave such questions open to investigation and do their best to know the truth rather than to confirm what it is they have always been taught to think — the majority of those “critical” scholars think x, y, or z.

Dr. Bart Ehrman - How Do We Know What “Most Scholars” Think? - Link

But then if we apply the same logic to Dr. Ehrman, as an Ex-Christian he also has confirmation bias to prove that the did not make the wrong decision by leaving Christianity: fact is, we all have biases and no scholar is 100% critical, but eliminating Christian critical scholars in his calculation is intellectually dishonest on Dr. Ehrman’s side. So, the majority of Non-Christian critical scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous: well as a Christian, Non-Christian scholars are as relevant to me as Christian scholars are relevant to Non-Christians, so would any Non-Christian accept the argument that the Gospels are not anonymous based on the critical scholarly consensus among Christians? If yes, then we are done here. If not, then do not expect me as a Christian to accept the Non-Christian critical scholarly consensus.

The Implausibility of Fabricated Authorship

2 canonical Gospels are assigned to people who had no first-hand contact with Jesus (Mark and Luke), so if the early Church did in fact fabricate some names to make the Gospels more credible then they were very stupid in their selection of names. Furthermore, Matthew was not one of Jesus' closest disciples, but rather one of the least favoured in the Jewish community (due to his profession as a tax collector), so attributing the most Jewish Gospel to a tax collector seems really irrational if they were trying to make their story believable.

Therefore, if the synoptic Gospels were to be falsely attributed to some authors in order to boost their credibility, it would be more logical to attribute the Gospels to Peter, James, and Mary; in fact, each of those three people is attributed an apocryphal Gospel.

For even more clarity, the book of Hebrews is openly acknowledged to be anonymous (even though the tone of the writer is very similar to Paul), so if the early Church tried to add authors for anonymous texts, why did they not add an author for the book of Hebrews?

How Anonymous Documents Are Actually Treated—And Why the Gospels Aren’t

With anonymous documents, we should expect to find competing claims of authorship, or at least claims of anonymity. Take the book of Hebrews as an example, and let us analyse how the early church fathers discussed its authorship:

Origen (239 - 242 AD): agreed with Pauline authorship, but still acknowledged that nobody truly know who the author is and that it could be Clement of Rome or Luke:

But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11–14

Tertullian (208 - 224 AD): Attributes the authorship to Barnabas, and says that the reason the tone is similar to Paul is because Barnabas was a travelling companion of Paul

For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: “Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?”

On Modesty

Jerome(~394 AD): mentions Paul as the most probable author, but acknowledges that there is dispute over this:

The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle — that to the Hebrews — is not generally counted in with the others).

Letters of St. Jerome, 53

Now that we have a background of how an anonymous document would be attested across history, we can very clearly see that the Gospels do not follow this pattern.

Popular Counter Arguments

John was Illiterate

Some skeptics cite Acts 4:13 as evidence that John was illiterate. However a quick glance at the context of the verse shows that John was not illiterate, but rather had no formal Rabbinic training, which otherwise cannot explain how the people could tell that but just looking at Peter and John, but people who had Rabbinic training would be easily identified by their appearance:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Acts 4:8-13 RSV

Moreover, John (unlike Peter) came from a rich and influential family:

John’s father had hired servants:

And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

Mark 1:19-20 RSV

John was known and favoured by the high priest:

Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in. '

John 18:15-16 RSV

Finally, even if John did not pen his Gospel, that does not mean that he is not the author as he had access to many resources from the early Church (in the same chapter of Acts) and could have easily hired a scribe to write down what he narrates (Just like Peter did in 1 Peter):

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

Acts 4:34-35 RSV

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it.

1 Peter 5:12 RSV

Here Peter admits that he did not pen his epistle, but used Silvanus to write it for him.

If Matthew was an Eyewitness, why would he use Mark’s Gospel as a Template?

First of all, I do not believe that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a template (since Ireneaus as well as our earliest sources tell us that Matthew was written first), but rather there was set of oral stories that were circulating around, and each of the 3 synoptic authors wanted to document these stories to the best of their knowledge. However, for the sake of argument, I am willing to assume that Matthew used Mark as a template, that would not be irrational, since as we saw above from Papias and Ireneaus: the Gospel of Mark is based on the stories of Peter the leader of the apostles and the first Pope. It would be perfectly rational for Matthew to use the template established by the successor whom Jesus chose to write his Gospel.

Note: I will not respond to any rude or even aggressive comments, so if you want to discuss with me, kindly do it in a calm and respectful tone. As last time I posted here, I was responding to rudeness with rudeness and to agresssion with agression, which is not good for my mental and spiritual health.